Delhi Court Convicts Man for Rape Based on False Marriage Promise
A Delhi court has delivered a significant verdict, convicting a man for repeatedly raping a woman after luring her into a relationship under the false pretense of marriage. The court emphasized that the promise was driven by clandestine motives to satisfy his lust and could not constitute valid consent, marking a crucial interpretation of consent in sexual offence cases.
Court's Observations on Consent and Misconception
Additional Sessions Judge Kapil Kumar, in an order dated April 9, held Mohit Rajpal guilty, noting that the consent of the prosecutrix was vitiated by a misconception of fact. The court stated, "It is proved that the promise of marriage extended by the accused to prosecutrix was a false promise to marriage and made with clandestine motives to satisfy his lust without having any intention to honour the same since inception." This ruling underscores that dishonest promises from the outset can invalidate consent, as they are used as tools to manipulate victims.
Details of the Case and Prosecution's Claims
According to the prosecution, the accused established physical relations with the woman between 2016 and 2018 by falsely assuring her of marriage. A case was registered under multiple IPC sections, including Section 376(2) for aggravated rape, 377 for unnatural offences, 313 for carrying miscarriage without consent, and 506 for criminal intimidation. The court observed that the false promise was the sole reason for the prosecutrix to consent to repeated physical relations, highlighting how such deceit can lead to severe legal consequences.
Survivor's Allegations and Court's Findings
The survivor had alleged that the accused subjected her to forced sexual acts, coerced her into terminating a pregnancy, and threatened her with dire consequences if she pursued legal action. The court found her testimony consistent and reliable, rejecting the defence's claim that the relationship was consensual. It noted, "The consent of prosecutrix for physical relations proved not to be free consent, being vitiated for the misconception of fact in her mind consequent to false promise to marriage extended to her by accused." This reinforces the legal principle that consent obtained under false pretenses does not amount to free consent.
Legal Principles and Conviction Details
Reiterating settled legal principles, the court affirmed that a conviction in sexual offence cases can be based solely on the testimony of the prosecutrix if it is credible and trustworthy. While acquitting the accused of charges under Sections 377, 313, and 506 IPC, the court convicted him for repeated rape under Section 376. The matter has been listed for a later date for arguments on the quantum of sentence, pending further legal proceedings.
Defence Claims and Court's Rejection
The accused denied the allegations, claiming he had been falsely implicated and alleging that the woman attempted to extort money from him. However, the court dismissed these claims, finding the prosecutrix's account more compelling. It stated, "It is also proved on record that the accused had specific knowledge that the prosecutrix consented to physical relations with him because of a misconception in her mind for the reason for the promise of marriage extended to her by him." This highlights the court's focus on the accused's intent and awareness in exploiting the false promise.
